The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
3 Points

Israel and Palestine issue: Palestines future in the world map

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/22/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,051 times Debate No: 34063
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)




Although the two-state solution is increasingly losing support among Israelis and Palestinians, it still remains the basic approach to resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The struggle over the historical British Mandate of Palestine/Eretz Yisrael, now divided between Israel, Jordan, and the territories in between, can possibly be resolved by confederative arrangements. It can be politically transformed into a trilateral confederation"a system that combines self-rule with shared rule. It will be comprised of three distinct, independent, sovereign states: the Jewish State of Israel, the Arab State of Palestine, and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, and run by a Jerusalem-based confederal authority. Such a political arrangement may be the best form of government for the resolution of the heart of the Arab-Israeli conflict and the key for a full normalization of the relations between Israel and all Arab states.

This concept was first presented in 1937 by Britain"s Peel Commission and subsequently proposed by the United Nations in the 1947 Partition Plan. Since 1993, this solution has been accepted not only by the international community, but also by Israel and the Palestinians themselves. In 2002, it was proffered by President George W. Bush as a new vision for the Middle East, and supported by the Arab League. Since President Barack Obama"s first inauguration in January 2009, he too has been promoting this vision. Even Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in his famous speech at Israel"s Bar-Ilan University in June 2009, spoke of a Palestinian state, albeit one with very strict limits and certain conditions.

At the basis of this confederation solution is the recognition that despite the moral and historical rights of the Jews to the Land of Israel, or Eretz Yisrael, we cannot ignore the realty on the ground: Palestinians will fight tooth and nail for national self-determination. The Israelis and Palestinians have had their destiny interconnected by virtue of the common land they live in, so they must accept that the constraints of Middle Eastern geography and demography engage in cooperation and compromise. Their historical aspirations and dreams of maximizing their territory must be compromised so that the two peoples can share the disputed land of historical Palestine/Eretz Yisrael.


I would like to thank Pro for starting this debate.
Let's go back into history, before 1967 there was a recognized Palestinian state next to Israel with East Jerusalem as it's capital. This is something that leaders of both nations are debating and compromising on, but there are a lot more others that would do so violently and they will take matters into their own hands (the people). Aside from all the personal beliefs I have, let's get into the facts on why I think it's not such a good idea.

1. The constant uprisings and riots from the Israeli people. Most people wouldn't want to live in Palestine if it were created, and they can see to it as something similar to the times when Germany, Korea, Vietnam, and USA were split into two. Israeli's, and even some Palestinians, would not support a sovereign Palestine.

2. The threat of war from either nation. Israel is predominately Jewish while Palestine would be Muslim, you cant put them at the same dinner table and not expect a war. It's happened in the past, and it would be likely to happen again.

3. Constant violations of UN and international law. Without pointing fingers or telling which side would do which, there would be a lot of unlawful bickering and attacks between the two that would lead to a serious situation. Same thing is happening in Korea, two enemies with different ideologies are likely to follow through with violence. It's a known fact.
Debate Round No. 1


what a surprise we've got, the land rightnow which is named as Israel is actually palestine's land which Israel has taken forcefully with americas help and its totally illeget to bring in different laws from UN who is not even willing to make palestine a full-member state. However, the collapse of the ill-designed Oslo process (1993-2000) and the violence on the northern and southern borders of Israel, despite the withdrawal by Israel of its military forces from Lebanon in 2000 and its unilateral disengagement from Gaza in 2005, show that the old mutually agreed upon principle of "land for peace" is not a sufficient basis for a political settlement. This compromising concept has not been convincing enough because the two sides are driven by conflicting national interests shaped by different historical narratives.
The concept of "sharing land for peace" requires reframing the conflict in terms of sharing the land rather than dividing it. The key for the Israelis and the Palestinians is to recognize each other on the basis of their mutual interests and the assets they share, despite their religious, national, and cultural differences. They must acknowledge their interdependence, even when they have already gained or still seek independence.
But this recognition can only be brought about by a pre-negotiation phase, during which a massive peace building initiative will be launched in Israel, the Palestinian territories (starting with West Bank), and Jordan, and facilitated by an international team of professional conflict-resolution and peace building experts, in coordination with the three governments. This initiative will use unconventional methods that "vaccinate" the environment and engage in a peace building process on multiple fronts"all designed to mobilize Israeli, Palestinian and Jordanian societies to empower their own governments to go to the negotiating table and finalize a genuine peace agreement. Such efforts and interactions across the great divide are indispensable and necessary conditions for creating a climate of interconnectedness and interdependence.


You're right, USA was one of the biggest assets for Israeli domination in the region. But keep in mind that even before all of this was happening, Palestine was kept under British rule which was the main reason they never caused uprisings in the first place. It wouldn't make a difference if Israel or Palestine ruled over the entire country.
It doesn't look like there's a whole lot that can keep peace between the two, but a civil unrest would be a lot less catastrophic than a state-run or funded war between the two. If they were separate countries, they would go to war and break international laws. If one of them had sovereignty over the other there might only be a few protests that can be solved with police. Negotiations aside, which would you rather have?

A separate Palestine and Israel would never live in peace, and you mention the things that should be done but you don't tell us why and how with proper sources and examples.
Debate Round No. 2


alright then lets go through things which we can do. With the success of this multi-state confederation, the focus could shift altogether to a shared infrastructure of peace that enthusiastically harnesses the resources, talents, and imaginations of the peoples in the entire region and effectively involves the international community in a new economic Marshall Plan-like recovery program. The Israeli-Palestinian-Jordanian confederative infrastructure could also expand its partnership to neighboring countries and together create a larger regional open market space that is connected to the Mediterranean and Europe with multiple economic cooperative agreements and a concrete program of international financial support.

But for this vision of peace to work, one critical condition must be met: visionary leaders must be in power. These leaders must be willing to sacrifice old modes of thinking for new ideas that make the possibility of peace a reality. This will in no way be easy. Completely different kind of leaders are needed to establish a new order in the Israeli-Palestinian relations"leaders who understand the risk and do it anyway, even at the price of losing their political seat. Such leaders are currently absent from the political arena.

The current paradigm cannot generate the visionary leaders we need, as proven by the recent Israeli election results. But they are expected to rise up to power during, or as a result of, the pre-negotiation, peace building phase, when Israelis and Palestinians both share a powerful vision of peace, experience a new paradigm that enliven the interrelatedness between them, and ultimately believe in the possibility of achieving a final settlement of their age-old conflict.

Dominated by a culture of fear and violence, what Israelis and Palestinians really need now is an alternative vision of a possible future for the Middle East, a new culture, a new paradigm that bridges the wide gap separating their historical narratives, shifts the Israeli-Palestinian bilateral track into a multilateral regional engagement, and generates new conversations about peace and new ways to create a peace system to replace the dominant war system that has been operating in this region since the beginning of recorded history.

By creating such a powerful vision, Israelis and Palestinians will all look into the future of their relations with anticipation rather than nervous apprehension and agree to step into a new era of reconciliation. Maybe the vision of "sharing land for peace" can inspire them to do it.


I think I see where you're getting at, and I like it. In order for these separate states to live at peace and effectiveness, there must be some type of union that overseas them (like the EU) via elected officials. We can call it the MEU (middle-eastern union) which would include nearly all middle eastern countries including Israel and Palestine. They would have the same currency and geopolitical status. That can work, can you agree to it? But mind you, without organization and structure the middle east can erupt faster than a wildfire.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by wrichcirw 5 years ago
PRO's round #1 plagiarized:
Posted by Ismail 5 years ago
The outline of borders of these contries in conflict.
Posted by 1Devilsadvocate 5 years ago
What is the resolution, that's to be debated?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by wrichcirw 5 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Did not read. PRO's round #1 plagiarized, see comment.